Here’s a chance to do something

A post on this blog back in January described the troubling history of Confederate Heroes Day in Texas. Now, you have a chance to do something about it.

One of the commenters to that post proposed the most obvious and reasonable solution – change Confederate Heroes Day to Civil War Remembrance Day. Texas Representative Donna Howard has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Needless to say, Howard’s bill has brought out the kooks. This is a chance for Texas Republicans to put their votes where their mouth is. If it’s true, as so many claim, that Texas has gotten over its civil rights era attachment to white supremacist causes, this is an opportunity to prove it.

Your legislator needs to hear from you. You can be certain that they are getting letters, cards and calls from every racist in the state. If you don’t know who your legislator is or have their contact information, you can run a search at this link. Contact your legislature and express your support Donna Howard’s bill.

Here’s a chance to move from talk to action. Share this with your friends in Texas. Let’s see what happens.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Neo-Confederate, Texas
61 comments on “Here’s a chance to do something
  1. flypusher says:

    OT, but this subject has been chewed on here many, many times, and the GOP leadership just may be running up the white flag:

    http://www.latimes.com/business/healthcare/la-na-obamacare-republicans-20150418-story.html#page=1

    “Republican lawmakers once cheered a legal challenge targeting insurance subsidies in about three dozen states as an opportunity to dismantle the law.

    Now, they are scrambling for a plan to preserve the subsidies if the Supreme Court backs the challenge. A ruling in the King vs. Burwell case is expected in June. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has proposed legislation to extend the aid for 18 months. Sasse and other Republican lawmakers say the time is needed to develop a replacement for the current law.”

    You need TIME to develop a replacement? WTF? You’ve had 6 YEARS, which you chose to devote to throwing one of history’s longest temper tantrums instead. But I see at least some of them have learned that touching a hot stove gives you a bad result. Of course they’ve pretty much burned off all their fingers, but better late than never.

    • 1mime says:

      Actually, Fly, Repubs have been ignoring American access to health care since 1989, when the original idea was presented by Heritage Action, a division of The Heritage Organization. It was in response to Hillarycare which Repubs deemed “universal healthcare/socialized medicine”. Even then, Repubs couldn’t find the heart to vote for health care coverage proposed from within their ranks, so the conservative alternative died.

      Republicans see health care as re-distribution, which is a very bad thing if you are conservative….unless of course, it comes in the form of tax loopholes, subsidies for Medicare Advantage, etc. Clue: it’s not redistribution if the idea comes from conservatives – it’s capitalism at its finest.

      So, I, too, hope their fingers get burned but I do know from following this issue closely, that the GOP is working on a plan to transition from the ACA. Of course, it still includes those nasty little subsidies, but, heck, when the GOP does it, it’s different.

  2. 1mime says:

    Here are four things we could do to make government work better. An interview with the author of a new book on governing….Unlock Congress: Reform the Rules ~ Restore the System Hardcover – April 15, 2015, by Michael Golden

    http://www.salon.com/2015/04/18/our_government_is_a_dysfunctional_mess_here_are_4_ways_to_fix_it/

  3. Tracey was talking about carrying guns in school
    This guy has a superb riff on that very subject

    part way through – it is really worth watching!

    • 1mime says:

      Loved it! Here’s to a rejuvenation of muskets!

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      Thanks for the link, Duncan!

    • unarmedandunafraid says:

      This guy covers all the points and does it well. In any discussion about guns, just provide this link.

      After watching a special about Tim McVeigh, it seems that it may not be about Freedom, Liberty, or the Safety of Your Family. It beginning to look like it’s just about the guns.

      • 1mime says:

        I just read this and thought it worth posting. From: Daily Kos

        “NRA-backed bills have been introduced all over the country to punish pediatricians who ask parents whether they have guns in their homes and to prohibit doctors from recording this information in medical files.

        The American Medical Association, the country’s biggest association of physicians, has come out against these “gag order” laws because research has shown that parents who talk about gun storage with their children’s pediatricians are more likely to adopt safe and responsible gun storage practices.

        It’s a doctor’s duty to ask questions about things that affect their patients’ health and well-being. That’s why the medical community considers talking to parents about safe firearm storage just as important as discussing the risks associated with swimming pools, second-hand smoke, and riding without car seats or seat belts.”

        And, another recent article outlining the extensive efforts by the NRA to thwart gun education.

        http://pediatrics.about.com/od/Gun-Safety/fl/The-Florida-Gun-Law.htm

      • Doug says:

        If a pediatrician asked me about guns in the home I would simply say it’s none of his business. Then I would find a new pediatrician.

      • flypusher says:

        Seriously Doug, something that could injure or kill a child is none of a pediatrician’s business??? You demonstrate the problem so clearly. You treat asking about guns as equivalent to confiscating guns, and innocents are sacrificed.

      • Doug says:

        How many firearms classes do they take med school? How much of their residency is spent in hands-on firearm training? I pay a doctor for his medical expertise, not his politics. And if you think this is not politics, you’re seriously naive.

        http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/obama-answers-american-medical-associations-gun-control-request/

        BTW, I once had a doctor lecture me about premarital sex from a moral, not medical, perspective. I didn’t go back to him, either.

      • flypusher says:

        A whole of them deal with the consequences of bullets colliding with flesh. That absolutely does give them standing to voice opinions on firearms. It is possible for them to broach the subject in a non-political manner, just like the doctor you mentioned ought to have broached the topic of sex in a non-moralistic manner. I have no problem with them asking parents about guns in the home and whether they are secured. You can’t be too careful there- just ask the family of that lady who was fatally shot in a Walmart by her own 2 year old child because she left her gun within reach for just a few seconds. All it takes is one small lapse.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        Doug – Please explain the political part of educating parents about the dangers of guns. Seriously. I am having trouble with the word “political” in the way you are using it. The one way that it could be political, would be that because Obama would like to see education or warnings about guns delivered to parents, it somehow changes their political affiliation. But having an opinion on any particular issue doesn’t seem political to me.

        And I’m not sure why a doctor would have to be highly trained gun expert to know the likelihood of gun death in the home. And how to make it less likely. It’s just statistics. When our first child was born, the doctor handed us pamphlets on child safety in the home. And ways to improve safety. There was info on electrical outlets and the doctors wasn’t a trained electrician, I’m sure.

      • 1mime says:

        Doug and/or Tracy, I have a question for you. In examining the four gun training requirements, one does pertain to gun safety and storage. This is a good thing but obviously not followed by all. With so many children being hurt or killed through improperly stored guns, can we ever do enough to pro-actively communicate with parents on this issue? It doesn’t have to be divisive, but many more parents interact with their childrens’ pediatricians or their GP than they do with the DPS.

        One child’s life due to an improperly secured gun is too many. We know these things happen. Let’s work together to do all we can to reduce risk to the fullest extent possible…..even if it is through the pedicatrician’s office….a professional who has invested not 4-6 hours but years in their field. If these doctors think they can (and should) broach this subject with parents, good for them.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        Doug – The read the article in the link you provided about pediatricians asking about guns in the house. It was misleading and slanted, but it did cause me to think about it further. I mean doctors ask me how much I drink and make me lie to them. Is it any of their gol-dang business? err, ok maybe.

        But so howabout they don’t ask about guns. They just assume their are guns.

        With every new pregnancy the hand out a pamphlet about child safety. In this pamphlet will be mentioned household poisons, maybe with a picture simulating a child with foam dripping from his/her mouth. And swimming pools, really lay it on thick, that a moments inattention and a pool is likely to end with a dead child. Again a picture of a toddler floating face down. And with guns, real statistics about household deaths by guns. Emphasizing that you cannot merely tell a child to not touch guns. That they have to be locked away or better yet moved out of the house till the children are grown. And a picture of a child with an exit wound of the head.

        But no questions. It would be better in my opinion if someone could drive these points home but I’ll settle for this compromise.

      • 1mime says:

        Unarmed – You do realize you’ve just used up your 15 min appointment and the kid hasn’t even been checked (-:

        BTW, like you insignia…pretty sunset.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        there, their, they,re

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        1mime – Chuckle, 15 minutes!!, you got 15 minutes!!

      • 1mime says:

        Unarmed, been to the Dr lately? 15′ is what you get if the Dr likes you….and, you better be nice to his staff, too, or they’ll hide you away where the sun don’t shine (-:

    • 1mime says:

      I decided to do a little digging on gun violence in Australia after viewing the video. Here’s a fact check analysis on that poiont:

      http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

      • With Doug’s attitude I can see why he needs a pediatrician,
        Personally I go to a doctor

      • Doug says:

        Hey Duncan, did you know that pediatricians *are* doctors? It’s true.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        1mime – For the complete story on Australian Gun control see John Oliver’s report on youtube. I included the link but the last time I tried the link, it broke big time. If it doesn’t work, please google it. Watch all three of the series. It is funny but very serious also with interviews with American and Australian polititicians. Jim Jefferies and John Oliver really do cover the gun argument.

      • 1mime says:

        Hey Doug, come on now, it’s all about kids. You know, the “little” ones. Do you really think the national pediatric association would go out on a limb for this if they didn’t have kids’ interests at heart? This is where the NRA should partner with them instead of fight them.

  4. 1mime says:

    Well, since we’re talking about states’ rights here, our good neighbor AZ, has just taken preemptive action on the ACA federal exchanges prior to the SCOTUS ruling. They hope the exchange subsidies will be struck down, but in the event they aren’t, AZ is nailing that coffin shut, legislatively prohibiting any exchanges to be organized within the state, jeopardizing health insurance for 150,000 Arizonians.

    “The bill bars the state from funding or implementing a state-based health exchange or federal marketplace.” That bill is now state law, signed by Gov. Ducey.

    We’ll show Obama who’s boss, crowed Gov Ducey and his fellow Republican Legislators!

    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/04/16/new-arizona-law-puts-subsidized-health-insurance-risk/25862251/

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      From vox:

      This is a key point that’s often forgotten in the King v. Burwell discussion: the lawsuit shuts off subsidies, but it doesn’t touch the taxes and spending cuts that pay for those subsidies. Republicans in those states will still be paying the taxes and bearing the spending cuts needed to fund Obamacare. They just won’t be getting anything back.

      This was a decision made, of course, by legislators and a governor who have insurance now, and will have it in the event of an adverse Supreme Court ruling. What will happen to the hundreds of thousands of Arizonans relying on Obamacare for their insurance is less clear.

      http://www.vox.com/2015/4/17/8444135/the-anti-obamacare-movement-is-making-red-states-sicker-and-poorer

      Red states that reject Obamacare will be subsidizing blue states with Obamacare.

      Crazy Rs have no smarts and no conscience. They just hate.

      • 1mime says:

        The GOP is set to unveil its budget, which de-funds Obamacare, which is expected on one hand, but really strange if one really studies what has happened to the growth of health care costs since the plan has been implemented. The GOP just can’t handle success, and they sure can’t handle health care reality. The Atlantic does just that in this piece:

        “…as the U.S. enters the last quintile of Obama’s term, the administration presides over a surprising historical moment. This was always going to be the Healthcare Presidency. But it wasn’t obvious, even to the best actuarial oracles around, that the president who did the most to grow the government’s role in healthcare since 1965 would preside over the period of slowest-growing healthcare spending since … 1965.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-america-reduced-health-care-spending-by-2-trillion/390771/

  5. BigWilly says:

    Yeah, but my superweapon will render you consciously paralyzed. Who needs a gun?

    Let their dead rest. It’s conditional of course because they must do it. Drop some Alka Seltzer and it will all be ok in the morning.

  6. Well, friends, I’ll be happy to call my rep. (Zerwas) in support of HB 1242, if y’all will do the same in support of HB 910 and HB 937.

    HB 910 is the Open Carry bill. There’s been a lot of misinformation bandied about on this one. To set the record straight: the bill does not enable just anyone to carry a firearm openly, rather it simply removes the concealment requirement for CHL holders like myself. Under current law, if I accidentally expose my firearm and someone chooses to make an issue of it, I’m potentially facing a Class A misdemeanor charge. Like the vast majority of people with a CHL, I have no intention of ever carrying openly. (It’s stupid to forfeit the tactical advantage of concealment.) However, I would like to see the criminal penalties for accidentally revealing my firearm eliminated. HB 910 does that.

    HB 937 is the Campus Carry bill. This bill, too, has been the subject of much propaganda. Again, to set the record straight: HB 937 simply allows those of us who have a CHL to carry our firearms on campus, just like we do in public just about everywhere else, everyday. Please note that you must be at least 21 years old to obtain a CHL, and the process is both time consuming and legally rigorous. The whole ‘drunk/crazy-students-with-guns’ narrative promoted by opponents to the bill is so much nonsense, much like all the ‘blood-in-the-streets’ nonsense that surfaced when concealed carry was first passed in Texas.

    I have a dog in the hunt on HB 937, as I am a lecturer at the UH main campus. (I teach a night course). Current law disarms me on campus, leaving me (and my students) to the tender mercies of the local nightlife as we trek to our vehicles at 10:30 PM. There is no armed security presence at the building I teach in, nor are there any access restrictions. The sparsely spaced, blue lit security phone kiosks are cold comfort. Local predators feel no particular compunction to conform to firearms law, so from a safety/security standpoint the situation is sub-optimal. As my dad was fond of saying, luck is not a plan.

    • Crogged says:

      Ok, I’ll give you those and will include a message of support for 910. Wonder what the premises liability insurance is going to be for those business which don’t use the signage. And since guns are legal products, I’ll still may on occasion go to a sporting goods store, but will choose whenever I can to acquire products from whichever business keep the signage up. Luck isn’t a plan, but it’s safer for me than a gun.

      On the schools-ok, better to do something like that rather than perhaps take something from the three quarters of a billion dollars for the DPS at the border. Maybe. I might have a few choice words regarding my limited acceptance of this pressing need vis a vis our complete inability to deal with clear language in the Texas constitution regarding ‘free’ education.

    • johngalt says:

      If you have a CHL and accidentally flash a weapon seen by someone that is a vastly different cup of tea, and might have a vastly different remedy, than allowing individuals to open carry semiautomatic rifles in public parks. I, and plenty of others, see this as aggressive and threatening behavior, which a subset of the open carry advocates are more than happy to demonstrate. Today, if I see someone who is not a uniformed LEO with openly carrying a gun, I call the police. If this passes, how am I (or anyone else) to determine who actually poses a threat and who is simply exercising their 2nd amendment fetish?

      The reverence with which you and others hold the “time consuming and legally rigorous” CHL licensure process is mystifying. You can do all the paperwork, including the required coursework and proficiency testing, in under 6 hours. This is little longer than required to get a driver’s license and I doubt you are convinced that the process to get a DL does much to ensure competency behind the wheel.

      I also spend (most of my) time on a college campus, in my case one that is attached to a large hospital that has a clientele of, shall we say, a diverse range of mental competency. People who may have been perfectly qualified to obtain a CHL enter this facility often under significant mental and physical distress. People in those states do not exercise their best judgement and do not need access to their weapons when doctors tell them they cannot do any more for their sick wives or that CPS is coming by to check out why junior broke his arm.

      The argument for campus carry based on self-defense is a specious one. UH main campus, with a 50,000 students and employees, registered six aggravated assaults last year, four of which were in residential facilities. This leaves two that occurred on the rest of the campus. That would make UH one of the safest spots in all of Texas. Given the potential for other negative consequences, I can’t see how allowing concealed carry is going to make that safer.

      • Jg, open carry of rifles in Texas is already legal and always has been. Sorry to burst your bubble. (Although I agree with you that the antics of some of the knuckleheads promoting constitutional open carry are pretty outrageous and could be viewed as threatening.) If you think you can get your CHL in six hours from soup to nuts, go ahead, knock your lights out. With respect to your mental patients, please understand that this entire conversation, not to mention our firearms legal framework, is of no account to them. If one of them decides to go on a shooting spree, the only thing that will stop them is somebody else *with a gun*.

        The most recent armed robbery at “one of the safest spots in all of Texas” occurred on April 8: http://www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2015/04/09/uh-student-reports-armed-robbery-on-campus/25508471/

    • Crogged says:

      “Absolute freedom and absolute security are not given to mortal man. Human freedom and human security are specific problems to be dealt with in specific cases. They can be solved only if they are made questions of fact, of inquiry about the means of securing them, of getting compromises not too unsatisfactory to those concerned. They can be solved only if the conditions are established that will transform conflict and debate into inquiry into a problem: only, that is, if the political method of compromise is enabled to function. Any solution of our social and industrial difficulties will therefore depend on our becoming as a people more politically minded, on our developing more political intelligence. We need more actual experience in compromising on measures for dealing with particular problems under particular conditions; we must become less rather than more content to take refuge in general principles, to sit back, criticize, protest and fight.”

      http://greaterclevelandcongregations.org/sites/default/files/On%20the%20Importance%20of%20Being%20Unprincipled.pdf

    • 1mime says:

      I cannot support 937 as written. Limit the bill’s carry provision to instructors or administrative staff and I would consider doing so. Not for students. I also think that each college/university should have the opportunity to “opt out” on their campuses, as Lone Star College has proposed. 910 seems reasonable based upon your explanation, so unless the actual intent or wording conflicts with what you have stated, I could support this……understanding always that I am not in favor of more guns but if it is fact that we need to better manage their use given the huge number of gun toting folks out there.

      Do what you like on conversion of Confederate Heroes Day. I support the change and don’t ask for any trades. Not the way I do things.

      • 1mime, about 1/4 of my students are professionals furthering their education in pursuit of an advanced degree. They are seasoned, mature adults. Assuming they are licensed, what about them?

        Concerning HB 1242, I don’t own a confederate flag, and my ancestors on both sides did not arrive on this continent until the 20th century. I don’t celebrate anything to do with the Confederacy, or the Civil War, nor do I consort with those who do. In short, I couldn’t care less. I do, however, care about HB 910 & 937.

        Now, I would never ask someone to support something they strongly oppose. However, there are likely some who care strongly about HB 1242, and couldn’t care less about HB 910 & 937. It’s perfectly legitimate to mutually support each other in such cases to move our respective bills forward. This is how bills are actually passed into law by grownups, and it’s how a functioning republic works. It’s called “horse trading,” and in these divisive times we’ve forgotten how to do it.

      • 1mime says:

        Tracy, You and I aren’t legislators. I think I have been clear about my reluctance to expand gun use. It’s personal. That said, bill 910 sounds like it is correcting a problem with the general law regarding concealed weapons, and that is probably a good thing. That is my “opinion”, as I am not reading the exact bill and I am not charged by the voters to make a decision in that regard. My “opinion” on 937 is as I’ve stated. I’m sure many of the students on campus are mature – probably more mature than many of our TX legislators who will actually have to read and vote on the gun bills. There are many other students who lack maturity. I simply don’t want to see guns carried on campuses by students. That is my opinion.

        It’s easy for you to offer a “trade” for something that means little to you (Confederate’s Day) in order to achieve acceptance for something that is very important to you – gun laws. I understand that, but these are two very separate issues and one does not offset the other. If you don’t care one way or another about this issue, you don’t need to take any stand on it.

        Elected official use compromise as a tool in the governing process. It shouldn’t require the sacrifice of deeply held beliefs but it can result in moderation of views for the greater good. I have made a good faith effort to understand and learn from the information you’ve posted and respect the depth of your feelings regarding guns. It has broadened my knowledge and awareness but has not fundamentally changed my concerns about guns. Please accept our differences as I respect your views.

      • 1mime, I don’t believe I have ever asked you to abandon your deeply held convictions. If I have given offense, I beg your pardon.

        I merely seek a world where we can both live by our deeply held convictions without requiring others to give up their convictions so as that we can enjoy ours.

      • 1mime says:

        Tracy, no offense taken nor inferred. I was merely pointing out that the Democratic process is complex but doesn’t require those within it to sacrifice core beliefs while it enables moderation. That’s all. No hidden agendas or deeper meaning meant.

        I had an opportunity to serve as an elected public school board member in a large district for four years. It was an interesting and challenging experience and I learned a lot in the process. One of the lessons I learned is that serving is harder than most people outside of the process realize. When I can “temper” my opinionated self, I try to remember this and cut elected officials some slack – when they deserve it. You are correct: compromise is an important part of the political process and it works best when the players are honest, well informed and open-minded….even when they disagree (-:

    • Crogged says:

      In the same spirit I will encourage my representatives that open discussion of the safety of guns needs to be encouraged in the state. As in a previous link you included where someone took information gathered by the FBI regarding ‘mass shootings’ and the author helpfully parsed the data down to those incidences where two people or more were killed, ipso facto, the only situation which makes up a ‘mass’ shooting. Thus, we don’t fewer mass shootings than claimed by the FBI! Wonder why the WSJ news desk didn’t publish that. I will remind my representative that should he be inclined to ‘protect’ guns from libel, and takes the Texas Food Disparagement Law, picks up his crayon, deletes Food and inserts ‘guns’ we will have a problem.

    • Bruce R says:

      Get some pepper spray.

      • Crogged says:

        If someone points a gun at you and you reach for a concealed weapon-are you lucky or skilled?

      • 1mime says:

        If “someone” is already pointing a gun at you, you’re likely dead if you pull second…..unless you are a very fast and very accurate.

      • “If someone points a gun at you and you reach for a concealed weapon-are you lucky or skilled?”

        Neither. About all you can say is both your situational awareness and tactics suck.

      • Well, 1mime, you have to admit, there are days… 😉

      • 1mime says:

        Tracy – “there are days”

        I’ll be real honest with you, I’d rather see a Ted Cruz with a gun in his hand than his hand on the red phone. I don’t trust his character or his judgment. In short, in case it’s not obvious, I am not a Cruz admirer.

    • flypusher says:

      Looks like conceal carry is going to pass anyway, but I’ll discuss. For the record, I have zero problem with responsible citizens owning guns. What I so strongly object to, with extreme vehemence, is guns in the hands of irresponsible dumbasses, which is a very big problem. I agree with you Tracy that the rights of the former should not be trampled in dealing with the latter, but the NRA doesn’t help at all with their attitude that ANY control attempts are a vertical free fall straight to confiscation.

      Like others, I have to wonder if open carry is really the solution to the problem of getting in trouble for accidentally revealing a concealed weapon. But in the spirit of negotiating, which means everybody gets something of what they want, but not everything, let’s say that you get open carry, under the current terms of CHLs. But in return, businesses and universities could reserve the right to not allow guns. We can agree that there some places, like bars, where it’s not a good idea to have a lot of guns on the premises, can’t we? I can also see the rationale for hospitals. Of course such places are then responsible for any needed security themselves.

      I’m very familiar with the UH crime blotter, and I’d agree that the campus police ought to have a very visible presence around the buildings where night classes are held. You seem like the type who would have spoken up about security issues- what sort of response did they give you? Allowing faculty/staff to conceal carry could be a compromise, but I know from my years at Rice that universities are very, very, very, very freaked out over potential liability. Maybe the lawyers can work something up.

      Lastly, I commend your honesty in acknowledging the NJs advocating open carry in the worst possible wrong way. Open carry with no training/license requirement is insane, and those people are total assholes. I’ve been to the range in the past (a friend loaned me a rifle and several different pistols), but I’m not as inclined these days, as I’m not going to get along very well with the crowd who thinks it’s cool to shoot at pictures of Dem politicians or that it’s patriotic to ban people based on their religion. I’ve had some intense dislike for various politicians (I absolutely despise Dick Cheney), but I’d never shoot at their pictures, out of respect for the American tradition that we transfer power in a peaceful, lawful manner.

  7. flypusher says:

    Here, I’ll fling some napalm and a crate of fireworks on this blaze.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121406/civil-war-150th-anniversary-confederacy-defeat-should-be-holiday

    I would so celebrate this holiday; I’d be helping to set up the performances of live patriotic music for any local celebrations.

    • Crogged says:

      Fly-what a great dang idea, got goosebumps reading this. In my email to my representatives, I’m including this link.

  8. flypusher says:

    Jacob Hale is a smart kid, and I can only hope any crap he got from the know nothing side only makes him stronger.

  9. texan5142 says:

    Not gonna happen, the video below explains why the(confederate) people in Texas will fight tooth and nail to make sure it never happens.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: